• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
SezMe said:
Since that cuts both ways, neither side can flog the issue. For example, we are now in what has been called the Adelson (sp?) Primary. The one in which potential candidates line up to kiss Sheldon's patootie in hopes of getting the ~$100 he plans to spend on the 2016 election. Remember it was Sheldon alone that kept the Gingrich bandwagon going for as long as it did.

Both sides suck up to Big Money so that as a corruption issue just doesn't have legs.

PS: I'm going to try to remember this thread and rub EG3K's nose in it come November, 2016.
Click to expand...

You sound like a liberal hack making excuses like that

Harry Reid made the Koch brothers the center of the democrat election strategy it was about money in politics

liberal hypocrisy has been proven now eat it
 
Since when has voting for president ever been anything but a choice between two evils? Keyword: evil. Yes, Hillary's a nasty piece of work. The relevant question is: is she worse than the other one?
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
... snipped for brevity ...

What POS gets 145 Million dollars from a foreign company? How stupid is Hillary? How corrupt and above the law must this moron feel? She is done she won't even be able to run for president my prediction is she resigns or worse ends up in Jail.

... snipped for brevity ...
Click to expand...

So just what is Hillary Clinton supposed to resign from?

Hillary Clinton currently does not have a job to resign from; the last job she had was as Secretary of State and she left that job over two years ago.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Since when has voting for president ever been anything but a choice between two evils? Keyword: evil. Yes, Hillary's a nasty piece of work. The relevant question is: is she worse than the other one?
Click to expand...

I held my nose and voted for her for Senate, and chances are good I'll end up doing the same for president. There are a lot of things I don't like about her, but I still believe she'd be a very effective president.

That doesn't mean discussing her shortcomings and making some noise about them isn't useful. That's one of the only ways to keep politicians in check; make them fear lost votes/power. Pay attention and they have to at least do better at pretending to be upright, which of course limits the bad they can do.

The the question isn't 'don't all politicians do that', it's 'is this useful noise, and is it true/a problem?' Sorry I haven't looked into this specifically enough to have anything more substantiation to contribute.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
You sound like a liberal hack making excuses like that

Harry Reid made the Koch brothers the center of the democrat election strategy it was about money in politics
liberal hypocrisy has been proven now eat it
Click to expand...

If you want to gain a small iota of political credibility, you could start by using the names of the parties accurately. It is the Democratic election strategy, or the Democrats' election strategy. There is no "Democrat" party. Messing up this very simple name is a sign either of stupidity or the kind of carelessness that the presence of run-on sentences, dropped capitals, and absent punctuation suggests.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Since when has voting for president ever been anything but a choice between two evils? Keyword: evil. Yes, Hillary's a nasty piece of work. The relevant question is: is she worse than the other one?
Click to expand...


No, it's not about that. It's about which candidate's party presents policy objectives that are more in line with how you would like things to be polity to be organized. All the other talk about personality/likability, scandal, experience, etc are just sideline blather. The question is: What will the candidates pursue in terms of collecting & spending money, selecting the federal judiciary, putting in place and enforcing regulation, launching wars of choice, trade policy, and that kind of stuff.

The only reason the thread starter is interested in the scandals is because he is not enamored with the policy objectives, and hopes the scandals will sideline the candidate.
 
hgc said:
No, it's not about that. It's about which candidate's party presents policy objectives that are more in line with how you would like things to be polity to be organized. All the other talk about personality/likability, scandal, experience, etc are just sideline blather. The question is: What will the candidates pursue in terms of collecting & spending money, selecting the federal judiciary, putting in place and enforcing regulation, launching wars of choice, trade policy, and that kind of stuff.

The only reason the thread starter is interested in the scandals is because he is not enamored with the policy objectives, and hopes the scandals will sideline the candidate.
Click to expand...

You know who was really good at collecting & spending money, selecting the federal judiciary, putting in place and enforcing regulation, launching wars of choice, trade policy? Richard Nixon.

Lets not kid ourselves, in order to accomplish anything like that you have to build consensus. Hillary and the Clintons are so wildly out of touch and arrogant that will never happen. She's been running for President for 15 years and she really sucks at that, so what makes you think that she'll be better at being President?
 
hgc said:
No, it's not about that. It's about which candidate's party presents policy objectives that are more in line with how you would like things to be polity to be organized. All the other talk about personality/likability, scandal, experience, etc are just sideline blather. The question is: What will the candidates pursue in terms of collecting & spending money, selecting the federal judiciary, putting in place and enforcing regulation, launching wars of choice, trade policy, and that kind of stuff.

The only reason the thread starter is interested in the scandals is because he is not enamored with the policy objectives, and hopes the scandals will sideline the candidate.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

And that is why I shall never vote Democrat.
 
16.5 said:
You know who was really good at collecting & spending money, selecting the federal judiciary, putting in place and enforcing regulation, launching wars of choice, trade policy? Richard Nixon.

Lets not kid ourselves, in order to accomplish anything like that you have to build consensus. Hillary and the Clintons are so wildly out of touch and arrogant that will never happen. She's been running for President for 15 years and she really sucks at that, so what makes you think that she'll be better at being President?
Click to expand...


I hadn't noticed that Hillary is bad at building consensus. She ran for president exactly once before, and would be president today if the fluky candidacy of Barack Obama hadn't come along. You are conflating the Clinton's being wildly out of touch with your preferred program with being un-electable. You'd best step back, look at the polls and the structural realities of a Republican's chances of getting an electoral vote majority, and prepare yourself for the nightmare scenario. Your personal disdain is far from universal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom